As it heats up outside many locals from Monmouth and Ocean Counties jump aboard their boats, sailboats, fishing boats, speedboats, catamarans, row boats, kayaks and canoes to have fun in the sun. But beware, after several hours of boating its effects on the body, such as fatigue, wave motion and heat exhaustion, which can make even the most prudent boater physically compromised or downright impaired. When these effects are combined with alcohol, it raises the likelihood that something will go wrong. When something goes wrong on water, it often goes quite wrong. The health effects mentioned have actually been proven to increase the effects of alcohol on the body with respect to sensory impairment. With the number of related accidents and fatalities, perhaps a Boating While Intoxicated or Boating Under the Influence public service campaign should be launched.

Nationwide each year, hundreds of boating deaths and injuries are caused by or in some way related to alcohol consumption. Authorities have determined that boating while intoxicated is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, if not, more so. Boats lack brakes, so there are no breaks to hit (and then pray). Further, open water is not equipped with traffic safety devices to guide your way, aside from buoy markers. The U.S. Coast Guard and New Jersey law enforcement will be on the look out for impaired boaters this summer on local lakes and rivers. Make no mistake about it if you are questioned by a member of the Coast Guard or police. Offenders can be charged with a DUI or DWI just as they could on land. Penalties include potential loss of all boat as well as automobile operating privileges for six months. The thinking is, if you can't be trusted with a boat, why should law enforcement trust you with a car.

As with all legal cases, details are significant. Further, civil suits may follow quickly. If you have been charged with a DWI/DUI for operating a boat while under the influence contact a defense lawyer immediately so that he or she can devise a legal strategy best suited to protect your rights.

Insomniacs beware! The medication that your healthcare provider prescribed to help you sleep could cause a phenomenon called sleep-driving. Driving while sleeping, by the way, is illegal, and not a good idea. Just imagine, you take your prescribed sleeping pill, get into bed to get some much needed and often elusive rest. Then, the next thing you know, you wake up in the morning with a motor vehicle traffic summons and a note with the location of where your car was towed on your bedside table next to you. Apparently, you have been charged with driving while intoxicated, DWI, but you have zero recollection of the event. The last thing you remember is going to sleep the night before.

If you or someone you know has experienced the scenario described above, you have experienced the phenomenon known as sleep-driving, an unfortunate side effect of many popularly prescribed sleep-aid medications. Some such sleep medications include Ambien; Butisol sodium; Carbrital; Dalmane; Doral; Halcion; Lunesta; Placidyl; Prosom; Restoril; Rozerem; Seconal; Sonata.

Courts are still divided on whether sleep-driving should fall under the category of driving while intoxicated, primarily because the driver never made a conscious decision to get behind the wheel. Legally speaking, and otherwise, this is an important distinction to make. The repercussions of such a conviction are as grave as if you were found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. If you have been charged with a DWI while you were under the influence of a prescription sleep-aid, or any medication, you should seek counsel immediately. Take every action to protect your rights.

Alcohol and vehicular troubles are nothing new to collegiate athletes, unfortunately. So this story can be added to the others covered here. Notre Dame's Wide Receiver Michael Floyd was reportedly sentenced to a year of probation and cannot drive for 90 days following his guilty plea to a misdemeanor drunk driving charge. Once Floyd's license is reinstated he will have a device in his car for 180 days that will monitor Floyd's blood-alcohol level and will prevent the car from starting if his blood-alcohol level is too high. Floyd was arrested for driving while intoxicated in March in South Bend, Indiana. At the time of his arrest, his blood-alcohol level was 0.19%, which is more then double the legal limit. Any attorney in this position would likely be patting himself on the back. He seems to have some trouble maintaining the separation of driving and drinking, so perhaps his sentence is fitting and will help him focus on his talents.
In Indiana drunk driving is considered a misdemeanor crime. Had Floyd been arrested in New Jersey he would have instead committed a Title 39 motor vehicle violation rather than a crime. The minimum penalty in New Jersey for a DUI is 7 months loss of drivers license. Since his blood-alcohol level was as high as a 0.19% (New Jersey considers over a 0.08% blood alcohol level to be driving under the influence) he would be required to have a mandatory interlock device. This device of course would prevent the car from starting if his blood-alcohol level is too high. He would be stuck with the interlock device for six months after his license was restored.
There are many permutations of penalties and sentences you may receive depending upon the number of infractions you have on your record. It helps to have an experienced attorney on your side. If you have been charged with a DUI you should seek help from a licensed attorney immediately.

One pound of most things is not a lot. A person can lose a pound in a day fairly easily, and gain one as well. But 585 grams, just over ½ of a kilogram or approximately one pound, when it comes to a controlled substance, is all it takes to get yourself in very, very hot water. Two nineteen year old men are certainly in some trouble for allegedly being found with an open container of alcohol, underage drinking, and interestingly, exactly 585 grams of marijuana while in their car in Brick, New Jersey.

Let's be clear: when it comes to pot, there are really only two options. The first is possession of under 50 grams, in which the charge is a disorderly persons offense (non-indictable, although you will be arrested, booked, and arraigned). The second is possession of over 50 grams. This one, considered intent to distribute, is, according to N.J.S.A 2C:35-10, a crime of the fourth degree, and can carry with it a fine of up to $25,000.00. It gets even better: possess drugs within 1,000 feet of a school zone, and if you're not imprisoned (as defined by the penal code), you'll have a mandatory 100 hours of community service you'll have to complete.

When it comes to determining whether or not there was intent to distribute, the factor most largely examined by the court is the amount of the drug that was seized by police. Someone caught with 30 grams of pot is more likely to convince a judge that it was for personal use than say, someone caught with 585 grams (about one pound). Some even try to argue that their 200+ grams of marijuana in the freezer bag in their desk drawer is for personal use, and that they just prefer to "stock up". Your personal preference of keeping a full stash is simply not persuasive or relevant for legal purposes.

In a Court of law, even with an attorney, that approach will not work. In fact, the New Jersey law allows an individual to possess a relatively large amount of marijuana, 50 grams. It's extremely unlikely that someone who possesses over two ounces of pot would have it and keep it to avoid the inconvenience of seeing their distributor or dealer once a week.

The bottom line? Possession of pot in excess of 50 grams will get someone in a whole lot more trouble than an amount under 50. So if police find you in possession of any pot/marijuana or any controlled substance, call a lawyer, obtain legal counsel, retain an attorney immediately. A good attorney will examine the details of your case, including method of arrest, search, seizure, and measured amount of controlled substance, among other aspects that might affect your welfare and determine the most appropriate legal strategy for your defense.

A Monmouth County man will reportedly be sentenced in Freehold to five years in prison in connection with the death of Wall Township man. Walter Poland was intoxicated when he hit the victim with his truck. Mr. Poland pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license, driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. His 54 year-old victim used a walker, had fallen and was lying on the ground in the shoulder on Route 35 in Wall Township. Police found Mr. Poland with help from a witness who reported the incident, which occurred back on October 4, 2010. These are three separate offenses, 1. driving with a suspended license, 2. driving while intoxicated, 3. leaving the scene of a fatal accident, but all deal with his fatally irresponsible operation of an ice cream truck.

A DWI offense means he admitted to being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, Driving While Intoxicated. The suspended license offense means his license was suspended at some point prior to this accident for a motor vehicle violation, and that he has no legal right to be on New Jersey's roads. If that previous offense was a DUI conviction, Driving Under the Influence, then the current convictions carry mandatory jail time. In this case, the number of offenses charged is a factor that will be considered in his sentence.

Finally, the leaving the scene of a fatal accident is an extremely serious offense. In any motor vehicle accident, whether a fender bump or a full on crash, if someone involved in the accident leaves the scene of that accident, that person can lose his or her license. If injuries occur, the penalty becomes more significant. Obviously, in this case where there was a fatality, leaving the scene is a regarded as a fairly shocking wrongdoing. The public is supposed to be protected from anyone driving who has not earned the privilege of a valid drivers license from the state. So we can be certain that Mr. Poland will be off New Jersey roads for a long time.

Even one conviction of DUI on your record could have a big negative impact on your future. It is vital that an attorney assist in handling any DUI or motor vehicle charges. Contact an experienced attorney immediately if you have any DUI or motor vehicle charges brought against you.

Ms. Pressly is latest Hollywood star to find herself spending a night in a California prison. The "My Name Is Earl" co-star was pulled over for something she did or failed to do behind the wheel of a car; there was no collision, car crash or automobile accident reported. From that point, the officer apparently brought her in to the precinct, having detected some reason to believe she had been drunk driving. She posted bail of $15,000.00 and was released the next morning.

While it is reported that she has been booked on suspicion of DUI, that term can mean different things in various jurisdictions. The key point in this story is that you do not have to be over the legal limit of .08 in New Jersey, and nearly every other state, in order to be in DUI trouble. Perhaps the starlett slurred her words, or gave some other clue.

For example, if a police officer initiates a motor vehicle stop and observes the driver to be potentially impaired he can ask the driver to get out of the car to start a test. If the driver then proceeds to have difficulty saying the alphabet, walking a straight line, standing on one foot, or any other similar test, he or she is then placed under arrest for suspicion on DUI, or driving under the influence of alcohol. The breath test or blood test will reveal if the person is under the influence of alcohol. It should be noted that one can get DUI for being under the influence of any type of drug, including prescription or recreational drugs. Naturally, the breathalyzer does not apply in that situation.

It is very easy to find yourself in DUI trouble, even if you think you have been cautious. Call an attorney immediately if you have been pulled over and questioned about drugs or alcohol use.

Police have reportedly just made the second largest drug bust in upstate New York, finding a young co-ed with a LOT of heroin. Keri Blakinger, a 26 year old senior at Cornell University, was arrested holding over 6 ounces of heroin, in a Collegetown hotel-motel. It is suggested that she was holding 500 uncut doses or $150,000.00 worth of the drug. Her former boyfriend has a history of drug charges in the area. Columbia, Brown and the other Ivy League universities all have drugs on or around their campuses, but this large amount is thankfully not common. It is unfortunate that the opportunities afforded to someone who earns an Ivy League degree will be lost on this student, and a tragic waste. Instead, she will be tested by the legal and, likely, penal system instead of the educational system.

Though the college student is described as holding $150,000.00 worth of heroin, the New Jersey laws regarding drugs or narcotics use weight in ounces rather than "street value" to measure the severity of the crime committed. If Keri had been in a New Jersey jurisdiction, she would be subject to various drug offenses. If the amount a defendant is charged with holding is greater than 5 ounces, the crime constitutes a first-degree crime, and carries with a possible 10-20 years in prison. The crime "intent to distribute" does not actually mean that the state would be required by the Court to prove that the person was a real "drug dealer" by trade or day-to-day profession. The way the law is written, it assumes that if someone has so much of a drug, he or she must be planning on selling it. It isn't something that people typically stockpile for use alone.

If you are, or anyone close to you is accused of possessing any amount of illegal drug, an experienced attorney should be retained in order to determine the best possible strategy to protect your rights. A skilled defense attorney can examine the facts and identify where the state's case might be fall short in terms of sufficient evidence and of burdens of proof, as required by law.

A developing story as Jeremy Green of ESPN has been arrested in Connecticut on charges of first-degree possession of child pornography, possession of narcotics and possession of drug paraphernalia. As of the date of the story, Green was in custody on $750,000 cash bail. Green worked as an NFL analyst for ESPN, and is the son of former NFL Coach Dennis Green.

The amount and nature of the bail set indicates that Green is facing serious charges of child pornography. Criminal charges are organized according to degree, and the first degree means that alleged crime is the most serious offense under the applicable statute. In New Jersey, the relevant law also places the burden on the defendant, or the person charged with these illicit materials, to provide the defense. This does not mean that he is presumed guilty unless he can prove otherwise, but it makes it very difficult to exploit gray areas of the law. For example, any person that presents the appearance of being under the age of 16 is assumed to be under 16 and it is not a defense for one to claim that he "thought" the person in question was older than 16. Therefore, it is a strict liability offense with limited defenses available. Unlike many other media personalities, Mr. Green's offense is not merely embarrassing but disturbing. It is a crime that has cost him his ESPN job. Even with an excellent defense attorney, he will likely face significant prison time unless new facts emerge.

More legal troubles for Johnny Jolly, defensive end for the Green Bay Packers. The key issue in this matter is that Mr. Jolly is out on a bond with pending criminal charges against him. When a person is arrested they have to post bail. Bail can have many different restrictions, and it is often newsworthy when a high bail is set, or a celebrity is released after posting a large sum of money. When arrested on the most minor criminal charges, most people are 'release on their own recognizance" (R.O.R.), meaning they are free to go but agree to appear in court at a set time and date. The Judge may very likely issue a warrant for arrest if you fail to appear at that predetermined time. Lindsay Lohan has had recent problems in this regard as well, stemming from criminal charges in California.

Mr. Jolly's charges appear to have been more significant, and as such, he was forced to post money in order to be released. The amount of money is usually commensurate with the nature of the crime and degree of flight risk of defendant. Flight risk doesn't mean someone who will not be present in the area, but rather, someone who may run from these charges and be difficult to find. Mr. Jolly would be a very low flight risk due to his employment in the N.F.L. As a team member of the Green Bay Packers, he could be easily located if he ever failed to appear at a court proceeding. And since the defendant has criminal charges pending against him, the Judge can put conditions on the bail. Here, the Judge appears to be unhappy that Mr. Jolly continues to be frequenting night clubs with alcoholic beverages present, and has "grounded" him while this case is still pending. Once the case concludes, the Judge no longer has a right to control Mr. Jolly's conduct. But until that time, Mr. Jolly must obey the Judge's orders or find himself explaining to the Judge why he cannot comply with the conditions of his bail. Even the best defense attorney would have difficulty with the case, if he continues to brazenly disregard the Judicial system.

Drug tests results carry a lot of weight in a courtroom. They are a requirement of any prosecution of a drug related crime. A scientist at NYPD forensic lab tech has been accused of falsifying drug test results and suspended when a trial was stopped due to concerns about her testimony. Mariem Megalla is reported to have mislabeled samples as positive, and failing to retest negative samples and marking them positive to save herself the work. The media has reported the details of her mishandling, misdeads and omissions. With 180 open felony cases from this year alone, this could rock the criminal justice system for the near future, possibly triggering appeals where possible. The Quality Control staff of the NYPD uncovered her alleged botched tests. This is not the first time that the forensic labs have been accused of sloppiness, laziness or incompetence, the most recent of which was in 2006.

This is a very serious matter because it puts the reliable of the state's evidence at stake. In a case involving drugs, the police cannot claim a substance is, for example, cocaine, without having it tested. Here is a hypothetical example: A car is stopped and police located packs of white powder, which they believe to be cocaine in the backseat of the car. The suspect can be arrested and charged with possession of cocaine; however, the state must prove that substance in cocaine at the time of trial in order to obtain a conviction. In this matter, it appears a lazy lab tech has put the state in a bind. If the substance was not properly tested defense counsel will move to have the evidence suppressed and then State will have no case to prove. This may turn out to only be an isolated incident, but every New York attorney that had a case where Ms. Megalla was the lab tech will surely be seeking that the State verify the results. Of course, a good attorney defending drug charges will examine the veracity of forensic evidence.

Charges of a drug-fueled rape of a potential client do not do much to help the legal profession. Mr. Al Garcia's rape trial began with his accuser's testimony that when she appeared for a consultation for his legal services one evening, she was instead offered cocaine, raped and forced to perform sexual acts. While three others have come forward to testify that Mr. Garcia attempted to trade legal services for sex, the defense has offered evidence that shows no signs of force or injury in the medical report taken after the alleged attack.

While this story leaps of the page due to the "shock value" the case may still be a difficult for prosecutor's to prove based on the facts that have been publicized. This case ultimately comes down to the credibility of both the victim and the attorney. This is because the attorney's defense is not a denial that sexual acts occurred, but rather that the sexual acts were consensual. The fact that Judge is allowing three witnesses to testify appears to undermine the defense. Witness testimony like this can backfire, though, because the defense may argue that the victim in this case was accepting the attorney's offer. However, the fact that the attorney was allegedly using narcotics really damages the attorney's image for the jury. The jury is going to have to weigh the evidence, and the drug use may be a factor is convincing a jury that the attorney did sexually assault the victim and that there was no consent. An experienced attorney can determine the strongest defense against these types of charges, with extremely sensitive and nebulous circumstances, based upon the specific facts of each individual case.

In addition to the State trial, Garcia has been convicted in Federal Court as well for distribution of cocaine and methamphetamine, though the State jury will not know this, at least until the trial is over. Regardless of the outcome of the state trial, Garcia faces attorney discipline including potential disbarment. His law license has already been suspended, and he will probably be looking for a new line of work. The only question is whether he'll have a stopover in the state prison.

Part II Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:
A basic principle of Fourth Amendment law is that "searches and seizure inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 5861980). The State bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search falls within one of the few, narrowly circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 7 (1980). Of course, if police have entered your home without permission without a warrant resulting in criminal charges, you should contact an attorney immediately.

One such exception is the "protective sweep." In Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), the Unites States Supreme Court determined the circumstances under which the police may perform a warrantless protective sweep of a defendant's premises incident to an arrest in order to ascertain the presence of any dangerous third parties. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. Id. at 327, 334, 337. Such a protective sweep is not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. Id. at 335. The sweep is to last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises. Id. at 336. Thus an officer's search for contraband or other evidence incident to an arrest does not constitute a protective sweep, and therefore cannot be based upon merely a reasonable suspicion.

New Jersey also has addressed protective sweeps. In State v. Henry, 133 N.J. 104, 118 (1993), the Court held that upon arresting an individual, "[t]he police may also 'fan out' and conduct a protective sweep of the area if they have reason to believe that they may be in danger from other parties on the premises." In State v. Doyle, 42 N.J. 334 (1964), the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the key to the propriety of a search is when the defendant was arrested. Police may not search in order to arrest, and a search to uncover evidence upon which to arrest is not made lawful because the desired evidence is obtained. Id. at 342. Absent a valid search warrant, the police must actually perform a valid arrest at same time that they performed the search that police justify as incident to an arrest. Id. at 342-43.

It is important to note that the scope of the sweep is a crucial factor. In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Court held that in the absence of a search warrant, the justifiable search incident to an in-home arrest could not extend beyond the arrestee's person and the area from within which he might have obtained a weapon. A search of a person or things within his immediate control or of the place of arrest to the extent that it is within his immediate possession or control is considered incidental to the arrest. Doyle, supra, 42 N.J. at 344. If police fish around beyond the area where a person might be able to reach, for example, evidence they find is not permissible in Court. Police then arguably must be able to convince the court that the evidence of danger was in reach. The experience of a police search and seizure at the home can be overwhelming, which is why these facts are best examined by a skilled attorney in order to determine the best defense strategy.

A defendant who pleaded guilty to assault, and charged with drunken driving, drug possession among other things, fled his home state recently. But according to a report, he virtually turned himself in using Facebook. He was living in a nearby state since the fall, and has been wanted by police for failure to appear at his sentencing. Perhaps he didn't realize that police use the Internet too. The tech-savvy police posted a thank-you note too, for the defendant's diligent status posts, which led them to his whereabouts.

Chris Terry was charged with a DUI, a class A felony dealing cocaine, a class C felony drug possession, resisting arrest, possession of a handgun without a permit and driving with a suspended license, in Clarksville, Indiana. Another man and woman were also in the car, in the man's pocket was $1,200.00 and near him was a large amount of cocaine. They were arrested for similar charges, including public intoxication. The arrest was made at a traffic stop early Wednesday morning when a police officer witnessed him driving erratically. Under Terry's his seat was a loaded handgun and in the cup holder next to him was some cocaine. Add to these elements that Terry is 6'5" and 295 pounds and that he allegedly refused to follow police instruction, this could certainly present a very dangerous set of circumstances. Terry is currently being held without bond.

Charges of DUI, drug possession, dealing, possession of a loaded weapon without a permit, resisting arrest and public intoxication carry serious penalties in every state, including New Jersey. This is quite a fall from Terry's football days. He attended the University of Georgia, and played for the Carolina Panthers, the Seattle Seahawks, and most recently, the Kansas City Chiefs in 2006 and 2007. It was reported that the Chiefs cut him for being absent from team meetings in 2007. The NFL suspended him from the 2008 season for substance abuse, after already having been suspended in 2003 drugs and a domestic dispute. Domestic violence and drugs are a common pair, and they should be taken very seriously.

In New Jersey, cocaine is considered a "Controlled Dangerous Substance," or CDS. As one example, this felony possession charge could lead to up to 5 years in jail and remain on your record permanently. If it is your first offense, you could be eligible for the Pretrial Intervention program, which can lead to a dismissal of charges after 1 year. One way to defend against charges of this nature is to question the method of the police search and seizure, or how the cocaine was discovered. The specific facts of the arrest are crucial in determining the best legal course of action.

If you have been involved in domestic violence, or charged with DUI, drug possession charges, weapons charges, or any of these crimes, it is crucial that you call an attorney immediately. Experienced attorneys can be reached at Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano and Witherington.

Marijuana Laws Could Change in New Jersey

On Monday, the chronically or terminally ill in New Jersey came a step closer to finding relief in cannabis, legally anyway, with medical marijuana. Outgoing Governor Corzine stated that he would sign the bill approved by the legislature before he left office. Soon-to-be Governor Christie has given his support to the bill publicly, though he had a concern for loopholes that may be exploited for the purposes of drug abuse. The federal government, according to what Attorney General Eric Holder has been reported as stating, would not prosecute those who are abiding by medical marijuana laws of the state.

The requirements for New Jersey's version of the medical marijuana law is strict, including that patients have chronic pain, wasting syndrome, or 12 months or less to live if a physician determines that the illness is terminal. In addition, only specific illnesses or debilitating medical conditions qualify, including AIDS, multiple sclerosis and certain kinds of cancer. Patients with the selected diseases would be given an identification card permitting them to obtain 2 ounces of marijuana each month from dispensaries sanctioned by the state.

Marijuana legalization on the whole is no closer to reality, however. The current marijuana laws, presumably, would remain in place. While the lowest marijuana law is a disorderly persons offense, possession of less than 50 grams or merely being under the influence of marijuana is punishable by up to 6 months jail time and a $1,000.00 fine. If you are found to have more than 50 grams, that increases to 18 months and a $25,000.00 fine. Possession of paraphernalia alone can get you 6 months and $1,000.00. Distribution of less than one ounce can put you in jail for 18 months as well, and paying a $10,000.00 fine, while more than one ounce increases the jail time to 3 to 5 years and a $25,000.00 fine. If distribution within 1000 feet of a school bus or school property, or near public housing, public park or public building, or sale to a minor or pregnant woman is proven, these factors will significantly increase penalties and make some incarceration and fines mandatory.

Make no mistake: For the foreseeable future, marijuana is far from being legalized, outside of a narrow medical purpose. Be sure to know your rights.

If you have been arrested for any drug related offense, or have questions regarding this area of the law, call Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano & Witherington for a consultation right away.